Did you know that there was a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns? While they certainly have push, and in some cases enacted, initiatives to go after illegal guns, most seemed to be aimed at putting restrictions on law abiding citizens, rather than going after the criminals who use guns to injure and kill. Because getting tough on criminals would be hard! And offend the sensibilities of liberal do-gooders, who think that criminals, such as gang bangers, should be coddled.

(TMJ4) Milwaukee mothers are being called to action in a national effort to tighten gun control laws.

“To every mother, we can not wait. We have to demand a plan,” said Roxanna Green in a TV commercial running in Milwaukee.

Her daughter was killed two years ago today in the Tucson, Arizona shooting that critically injured congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns is running a TV ad in Milwaukee to promote the “Demand a Plan” website (www.demandaplan.org ) to end gun violence.

And what do they want? Mostly the same old same old, which mostly targets law abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional Rights

Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America

Ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines

Make gun trafficking a federal crime, with real penalties for “straw purchasers”

Oh, I like that last one. It would have gotten quite a few people in the Obama administration in trouble for Operation Fast and Furious, which further same over 200 Mexican citizens and at least 2 American federal agents murdered. But, the media doesn’t like to talk about that, I guess because they hate Mexicans.

Anyhow, they make it clear that 33 people are killed by guns everyday. I think most of them occur in Chicago and other gun free zones, but I could be wrong. Meanwhile, around 115 people die in car related accidents every day. We should ban them. That would make people safer. Oh, and there are approximately 3,000 babies murdered through abortion daily. We should save them.

When Mayor Barrett was in Congress he voted to ban assault rifles in 1994 but the ban expired in 2004. These days Barrett advocates for tighter gun control laws at the state and federal levels.

“To make sure people who are not legally able to get a gun, don’t get a gun!”

In other words, they are coming for the law abiding citizens 2nd Amendment Rights.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

10 Comments

Comment by john

2013-01-09 12:21:22

Teach the 33 people per day does NOT include an equal number who commit suicide with a gun. So really the total is at least 66. Guns should be regulated like motor vehicles. Title registration, licenses by class, and liability insurance. You have a right to own a dog, but it too must licensed. 2nd Amendment rights have ALWAYS been restricted. Wyatt Earp said sorry no guns in Dodge City. Machine guns demand a special license/tax/permit. We have banned explosive rounds, bummer no RPGs. Most,not all, ban firearms for felons (even though of course they may “need” them to defend their children). Please post pics of your retail workers openly carrying while at work. I am SURE that your store(s) would become internet stars if that got out.

John, show me anywhere in the US Constitution or in any foundational document that expresses the sentiment “the right to own a dog shall not be infringed.”

You keep bringing up Wyatt Earp but such a ban was already declared illegal in Washington and Chicago by the Supreme Court. The Dodge City ban was never challenged. And once again, while saying you don’t want to ban all guns, you use as an example of what you think is legal in the banning of all guns.

Felons also do not retain the right to vote, john. Felons convicted of certain offenses may have movements restricted as well as not drive. It is a long standing legal premise that a felon, by his actions, forfeits certain rights.

Finally, instead of demanding others do something, please post your address and a picture of you standing in front of your domicile with a sign that says “I am not a gun owner.”

Let us know what happens.

Comment by john

2013-01-09 12:51:35

carver what about restrictions on fully automatic weapons? or explosive rounds like RPGs do you consider those restrictions to be unconstitutional? The Supremes said that handguns could be possessed, but they did not rule on what restrictions could be placed on them i.e. felons. do you see the 2nd Amendment as being totally different from all the other Amendments which HAVE had restrictions placed on them ? Please tell us whether you think ANY restrictions should be placed on the 2nd Amendment. Airplanes? Congress? The Supreme Court building ? should you be allowed to bring a gun into any and all federal Buildings? Where does your “right” cease to exist?

No Teach, lame argument, we should not ban cars BUT we should continue to try and have fewer fatalities. We might begin to reduce the number of fatalities. DUI laws do not eliminate all alcohol related deaths, but they do reduce them. We passed laws stopping drunk drivers from going to other states to get licensed that had been taken away and that worked. If you do not think that laws reduce crime you are an idiot who wants no laws at all.

DUI laws do not eliminate all alcohol related deaths, but they do reduce them.

Factually false, john. Laws did not stop alcohol related deaths at all. What reduced them was educational programs which taught the horrors and devastation of drinking and driving. There has never been any study showing the causality between DUI laws and lower DUI fatalities.

do you see the 2nd Amendment as being totally different from all the other Amendments which HAVE had restrictions placed on them ? Please tell us whether you think ANY restrictions should be placed on the 2nd Amendment.

As I have said previously, john, no right is an “absolute.” I accept the idea of some restrictions. You mentioned two of them and most gun owners agree with those restrictions although even those restrictions are not “absolute” – there are exceptions where one can get a licenses for fully automatic weapons.

However, in restricting a right, the government has to show a compelling reason to do so. For example, “time, place, and manner” restrictions on free speech are allowable in the case where the speech shows a definite likelihood of harm to another. In the case where one person’s rights impede, infringe or harm another person or that person’s rights, the government has the ability to create a restriction.

In the case of gun restrictions, you are demanding that people acting in a legal manner – ie owning a weapon – have a restriction placed on them despite their act of ownership never infringes upon another person or another person’s rights.

One would never advocate banning or even restricting all free speech because someone made a threat against a public official (which is a crime.)

Yet because criminals use a weapon, you are looking to ban all weapons or restricting them because of the acts of criminals.

The positions of legal gun owners is consistent with established law and precedence. It it liberals like yourself who are looking to remove the rights of people.

LOL – What you told me there inadvertently, John, is that we don’t need new gun laws. We need to isolate people of color, so as to reduce the threats and the danger that they present to the rest of society.

Now don’t get uptight, booby. Those are your own statistics, and the facts speak for themselves. Open mouth, insert foot much?

* crickets *

Comment by Anne

2013-01-09 15:30:51

We’re seeing smoke and mirrors by John, who has created a diversion and a distraction.

Believe me, he knows very well that, although they are minorities, people of color commit the vast majority of the murders in this counry, 78% actually, and those recent murders of those school children in Connecticut was an anomaly.

So get real, John.

Comment by Gumball_Brains

2013-01-09 15:43:19

they can try coming for my guns. They can try pushing for registration. They can try banning more icky looking rifles.

I tend to think that one reason why we don’t have RPGs, is because explosives are regulated by another law.

We allowed ourselves to be restricted away from automatics because of how they were used by criminals. We comforted ourselves that we could still have the same type of gun, but in a manual version.

But, if they also want to take our manual versions away, they are going to have to kill my ass first.

As far as I’m concerned, there is no reason to restrict ownership to any type of gun.

I tell you what. Here’s the grand compromise: I’ll let you put in place a federal registration if you remove all restriction to gun purchases.

Change Font Size

Pages

Live Traffic

The Code

All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.

NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.Pirate's Cove by William Teach is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Search for:

The Author

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
In politics the middle way is none at all.